Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Lasrick writes "Nebraska researchers say they refuse to be used as political pawns: 'The problem, according to members of the governor-appointed Climate Assessment and Response Committee, is that the bill behind the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change. In so doing, it completely leaves out human contributions to global warming.'"

As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

Everyone has an agenda. Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society. It is (and has amply proven itself to be) capable of corruption, graft, and political pursuit of goals contrary to the interests of those who are taxed to fund it.

Concentration of power is the problem. Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction. They both pursue their own agendas in service to the elites who are stakeholders, and then use propaganda to claim otherwise.

Why does that make you want to disagree? Oh, I see. You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society precisely because it's the "end boss" of all the large corporate entities.

I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.

1) big corporations don't exist - politicians exert control over small businesses, extorting money out of them for election funding, and giving favorable treatment to those who pay up, and penalties to those who don't

2) overwhelming government power doesn't exist - big corporations don't throw money at politicians, since they can make better investments that have better returns.

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

Actually, I fear the real problem is this: "Homo Sapiens is an oxymoron." Both corporations and government are composed of people, and all-too-often people embrace and extend their flaws, rather than trying to be better people.

As for option 1, you're right. As for option 2, you're nuts. Corporations would do away with regulations, our air would be like China's, The Cuyahoga River would still be burning, and things like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire would be regular occurrances, except "tort reform" would be used to make sure corrective action couldn't be taken.

IMHO the power hierarchy should be:1 - The voters2 - The government, but that government should be wise enough to know that that power should be used sparingly.3 - The rest.

Nifty experiment... Imagine that we could all designate how our tax dollars were to be spent. You can't change the amount, just the distribution. I have this ugly feeling that by the time everyone had stated their wishes, with perhaps a few rounds of iteration on the process, the budget would wind up pretty close to where it is now.

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

You are right, but for the wrong reasons.You see, if big business are not limited by anything but themselves (the "free market fairy" hypothesis), then there would be no election process - the big corps don't need it because they don't need democracy to function.

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

Actually, the big reason that businesses engage with politicians is not to unbalance the market, it is to make sure they have a nice friendly environment to do business in. They lobby government to pay less tax, be allowed to hire and fire at will, and also get new laws onto the statute book that benefit them like the DMCA.

I know this is going to be a wasted breath, but anyone in the US vaguely interested in how governments work should actually take a look at a few political systems in modern Europe and see how they prevent thing like corruption and use government and regulation as a method of restricting the power of large corporations instead of enhancing it. That might involve looking beyond the news reported by US news networks though as they generally have a serious vested interest in government being weaker so the rich and the corporations that own them gain even more power to push the pro-capitalist propaganda that so many of them are so fond of.

Unfortunately, the other end of that is: If government was limited too much, it would not be able to stop abusive practices of big businesses. Some government rules and regulations might be garbage, but others are the result of businesses in the past trying to get away with anything and everything. Minimum wage laws and limits on worker hours or child labor? Because big business used to work people (including children) to the bone for virtually nothing. Workplace safety laws? Look at the garment distri

If by "powerful" you mean the ability to influence society, it's not even close. If you mean, "the ability to put armies in the field", corporations are catching up fast. If you mean, "the ability to exert their will on individuals, corporations are way ahead of governments.

With the rise of corporate sovereignty, corporations are now saying, "We don't need governments, so we plan to ignore them".

Government is supposed to play the role of the impartial referee in the game of "Capitalism".

Absolutely not. No less an expert than Thomas Jefferson believed that government's role was to act in opposition to corporate power. Not impartial, but as a counterforce that could bring some measure of moral accountability to the amoral golem of the corporation, with it's shields from personal liability.

Outside of unions and governments, there are no other such forces. And before you say, "Free Market", that onl

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.

If science is done correctly it shouldn't matter what the funding source is. All of the money in the world can't change reality. You can try to put whatever spin you want on science but ultimately the real world will trump it.

That is totally wrong. You can fund science and ask a stupid question and then get a stupid answer, then twist that stupid answer into something it is not.

In this case earth cyclic weather change. Well that is utterly meaningless, as it can only really occur due to external circumstance ie solar output and orbital mechanics. Catch is both of those do not explain major ice ages. Which look to be driven by probability based co-incidental major geological events (a series of major earthquakes and major volc

I Disagree. Publically funded research is essential because there are many fields that private companies would not research (ironically, like climate change) and where monetary interests influence the results. The main problem here is that it seems that there are no checks in place to prevent (obvious) influence from eg. lobbying groups, or prevent bogus research from being funded (like the "only cyclic" climate change that is the topic here)

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

Then you've also got the insurance industry who always has to have their ear to t

First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

Recycling is also not exactly a sure fire route to buckets of cash. Somethings it is cost effective to recycle like aluminium and maybe steel but most stuff is cheaper to just throw in a hole in the ground. The problem is that nobody wants a landfill next to their house and so the only money is in making rubbish go away as nobody wants to deal with it. Most stuff is simply too damn hard to split out into its raw materials in order to recycle it without serious government grants.

As to electric vehicles it might be trendy but it is nowhere near as profitable as making good old fashioned gas guzzlers. The US auto industry did not need to be bailed out due to everyone buying electric cars, they needed a bailout because labour costs were too high and because more and more people were choosing to buy foreign cars. Most other countries auto industries have done ok.

The reality is that without government funded research coming out of other countries the huge corporations and oil companies would have just out spent everyone else trying their damnedest to sweep climate change under the table.

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?

Let's rephrase to remove that objection.

Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis [nih.gov]), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.

To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

The university system is the USA's last beacon of exceptionalism, and is systematically being eroded by turning professors into professional grant writers. Momentum is mostly what is really keeping it going. The public funding of research also supports education of the entire population. Only a radical would propose undoing such a successful system based on some intellectual theory on how societies and economies work. A theory that most academics disagree with. See Hayek's Fatal Conceit [wikipedia.org].

Taxpayer funding of science has *not* produced politicized science; not during the period, say, from the end of WW2 to the end of the 20th C. Yeah, it *sounds* plausible that federal funding should produce politicized research, but if you ever worked in a science lab or with researchers on Federal grants you'd know that it just didn't happen.

So what has changed? Thus far, for the majority of researchers, not much. But there have been two big issues. One is the rise of political concern over climate change research. The second is the shift of the Republican party from a industrial state based, business-oriented party to a Southern regional party driven by social and religious issues. 52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.

Well, I used "creationism" as shorthand for the result. 52% of Republicans believe that the world was created by God some time in the last 10,000 years. 34% of *Democrats* took that position in the Gallup survey. It is possible that not all of the people who believed that call themselves "creationists"; but generally people reject "-ist" labels put on them by others.

Plus, if you really believe that 34% of Democrats believe in creationism, you seriously need to stop eating what the press is feeding you. The press is nothing but scare-mongering, and whether it's ginning up fears that the terrorists will kill you, or that the creationists will take over, the press is mostly fiction.

I'm just going by what the Gallup poll said. There may be methological flaws, of course, such as relying upon self-reported party affiliation.

As for the power of the religious right in the Republican party, I think the poll's estimate is probably high if you look at people *highly* involved in Republican politics, such as people who volunteer on campaigns or run for office. But if I'm right, that doesn't mean that the religious right isn't influential. Political power is dependent upon your ability to sw

As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

Using Eisenhower's warning about the influence of politics on science to reach the conclusion that all taxpayer funded scientific research should be eliminated is about as sensible as taking his warning about the military industrial complex to conclude there should be no taxpayer funded military.

So where did the internet come from? Was it a untapped natural resource that was just lying around, unused until somebody figured out how to make it work?

In case you forgot, the internet started as ARPANET [wikipedia.org], which was funded by the federal government. It was a research project, which is the R in ARPA. Research means experimentation, which is what scientists do. That this funding came out of the DOD is irrelevant. Quibbling about it not being "science" is also nonsense. The academic field that includes computer networking is called computer science. I don't think anyone has plans to change the name anytime soon.

You are dumber then a box of rocks. You live in an environment created by a huge effort on the part of countless people, many of whom worked for various governments. Jet engines, nuclear energy, computers, all resulted from government initialed efforts.

You're ignorant and ungrateful. I wish there was some way you could be stripped of all the benefits that have accrued from government research. You'd be sitting miserable in some decrepit hovel, which is all you deserve.

Government funds the research that private enterprise can't or won't. Private enterprise not only funds research in self-interest often funds research with "no strings attached", the institutions set up by Gates, Gore, Clinton and others are all excellent examples if you can see past the politics of the front man. As much as I hate the anti-science FF lobbyist, the $50M spent on them by corporations over 20yrs is a drop in the ocean, I find it bizarre how what amounts to a "rounding error" spent on anti-sci

Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!

While this is technically still true, this isn't the mid-20th century anymore. That's the exception, not the rule. Keep in mind that that research funding came from an environment of high taxation [slate.com] leading to research being the best

"That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*."

Yes, it is the problem.

Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

You do know that absolutely all serious climate research do this already? That is take into account natural causes in addition to human influenced causes. The "baseline" people keep talking about here is part of every major study on this. It is interesting how easily people seem to think that their own "common sense" trumps science. "Stupid scientists, weather changes, why didn't they think of that!" It explains how people can so readily dismiss science in various areas, like evolution for intelligent design, alternative medicine for medicine etc.

Then let the science speak for itself. I mean seriously, if it is already being done then it will independently verify the know results and strengthen the argument fot AGW. If the science shows something different, then the models can be improved but at least it will be science driving it regardless of the motivation for the science. Iff the science doesn't happen because of politics, we will know it is politics.

I simply do not understand how a group can claim something is scietifically true and refuse to do svcience because the results might favor people who do not trust the svientific accuracy of that truth. Its like saying this lock id unpickable and never letting anyone try to pick it.

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

The ONLY thing even remotely related to that was mention that the word "cyclical" was put in. There is no indication that the study calls for any pre-determined conclusions. It only stipulates that certain parts of the climate equation be studied. Why do you have a problem with that?

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

It's actually worse than that. The topic of study is on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, but the bill says they're only supposed to look at "cyclical" changes.

I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.

Not only is it a nonsense question studying a fictitious universe. It's a completely useless question since there isn't any such thing as antibiotic resistance without evolution.

What's the effect of climate change on Nebraska if you assume all the climate changes are cyclical? Well nothing, because if the changes are cyclical there is no climate change.

There are studies of it, plenty. What we don't need is politically motivated research with predefined results. That has also been done several times, and they all ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus (though sometimes only after being called out on fabricated numbers and bad science).

How do you determine 'human influence' without first knowing how the climate changes naturally?

OK, the Climate Change Deniers have their 'Hockey Stick', where the temperature was perfectly flat until EVIL SUVS appeared, but no sensible scientist should take them seriously. Earth's climate has been changing ever since it reached the point where it could sensibly be said to have one.

When a politician with openly stated biases comes to you and asks for evidence to support his existing point of view you should be suspicious. No matter how good your study they will at best use one or two data points out of context and ignore your conclusions.

"If only there were some. ..natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature.
It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun."

The idea that, just because I find the "Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change" club is tantamount to a religious cult armed with a computer model means that
I am automatically contending that "climate is constant", is more than a little silly. The idea of nature conservation is as conservative as conservare [wiktionary.org].
If the last decade of ManBearPiggery has taught anything, it is the imperative to reject categorically all appeals to guilt

If you don't have any understanding of the noise, how can you detect the signal?

You can't, which is of course why that is pretty much all climate research consists of -- separating and modelling different forcings and interactions, some of them caused by human activity, most of them natural. Really, how did you figure climate researchers arrived to the conclusions there are today? Have you even looked at any research?

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change". There are multiple factors affecting the average energy in the climate system, greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) and solar irradiation being the most important ones. You need both to explain temperature trends, not only the current ones but historical. It has been studied by many researchers to great detail, and it is being studied still more.

By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change. It is probably one of the most blatant and ignorant attempt and controlling science for political motives I have seen.

To paraphrase you: you "should be taken out and shot". They're already studying "cyclical" climate events as a normal part of studying climate change. They're not ignoring anything. The fact that a legislative body is trying to force them to study something that they're already studying, under a label so hilariously inaccurate as to be useless, is evidence of just two things: 1) they have no fucking clue what they're talking/legislating about; 2) they want "science" backing up the conclusion with which they started.

There are a multitude of cyclical climate events that make up part of the models used in AGW theory.

Yes! They are so intimately part of climate change models that it would be impossible to not study cyclical properties. That is why the statement doesn't make sense to me -- it would be like saying "we want you to study climate and focus on molecules", or some other completely generic and inseparable property abundant in every aspect it. And then they call it "cyclical climate change", as if there existed some kind of separate theory of the climate that is purely cyclical. As opposed to what? Linear climate

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?

America is turning into the laughing stock of the world. It is truly embarrasing. Conservative Americans might be mad at my post or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

Please try to keep up. The current crop of "conservative" (read libertarian) Republicans have no allegiance to Wall Street. Hell, during the banking crisis, they were the ones telling Wall Street to go to hell. They didn't want to bail out the banks, or AIG, or the GM or Chrysler. When they shut down the government, it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street telling the Republicans to knock it off. Now, the corporate interests are interested in running candidates against the Tea Party.

That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.

... but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

You are absolutely wrong. They are believers or deniers of science and reality depending upon the issue. Both parties have core beliefs that are held as articles of faith that can not be disputed.

There is a saying that you get the government you vote for. It is obvious that existing parties have permitted too many special interests (from oil companies to deficits) dictate their priorities. The citizens are supposed to take a participatory role in selecting government and driving its priorities. They have chosen the backseat, or more properly have sold their control for a handful of shiny beads. Blaming your government is blaming yourselves.

Surely some of the AGW denying researchers like Roy Spencer will take up the invitation. Funny thing about Spencer and his ilk, though. They're quick to take Koch money to attack AGW, but seem reticent to do actual research to back up their frequent public skepticism.

These scientists are misguided, to put it kindly. I don't think they've really thought out their positions.

First, science is science. There is value in studying the natural climatic progressions of the planet.

Most importantly, by refusing they are doing far more to help deniers than they would be by doing the study. Just makes them look like they have something to hide to the typical conspiracy minded denier dolt.

The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.

They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.

We have mountains of evidence supporting AGW, and we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked. We do not, and cannot, have "mountains of evidence" against religion in general, and religion in general doesn't kill people.

We do have mountains of evidence against certain religious beliefs, such as faith healing, and in those cases we DO intervene, e.g. by forcing parents to take their kids to a doctor.

People can believe what they want, but when we as a society are making life-and-death policy decisions, we should rely on evidence and scientific consensus.

Politician: We're commissioning a study on biodiversity. But this study strictly focuses on intelligent design, so don't include anything about evolution. After all, we should explore alternative explanations for a prevailing theory.Biologist: We refuse to participate in your misleading, artificially limited study.Idiot Slashdot Commenters: The biologists are an evolutionist cult! They're... they're building a cathedral! Science isn't just confirming what you know! Real scientists would do the investigation to learn more about intelligent design!

And yes, before, you say it, cyclical climate change is a real phenomenon while intelligent design is not. But the idea is the same. You can't analyze an effect and pretend one of its primary causes just doesn't exist.

To quote in part;
"... National Weather Service, pointed out that âoecyclicalâ isnâ(TM)t even a scientific term."

So they do not or will not recognize that weather is or can be cyclical. No surprise since on longer time scales than a generation or two of human activity becomes said activity becomes immeasurably minute compared to geological, solar influences and things on a much more macro level. Those "scientists" insisting on including human activity is like a scientist looking at a grai

So, this is really just an example of what we all (should have) learned when taught logic:

False premises lead to whatever conclusion you want.

In order for the statement "If only cyclical changes influence climate, then the effect on the climate of Nebraska will be ________," to even be worth asking, there has to be a good reason to assume that only cyclical changes influence climate, or a good reason not to assume other influences.

Good lord, what the fuck is wrong with the commenters here? It's for the same reason that biologists wouldn't consent to researching intelligent design as a 'falsifiable alternative' to evolution, without evolution being a part of the study. The study is framed in a way that ignores the overwhelming weight of the evidence and lends credibility to crackpots.

Methodology is supposed to override objective in science. It doesn't matter whether my hypothesis is that the world is round or flat, in the former case it should be upheld and the latter case it should be invalidated, but in either case science should produce the correct result. What "lends credibility to crackpots" is if scientists are specifically avoiding doing science because of how they feel the results will be cited, because frankly at that point the crackpots are right, there *is* a conspiracy aga

The scientists are free to study what they like (in so far as permitted by their funding). This is a deliberately scuppered study on the effects of climate change on Nebraska. By ignoring the elephant in the room the results become next to useless, even dangerous. Since scientific careers are built on usefulness of research taking this on = ~ 3yr of career down the pan for nothing. "They should study it anyway! Scientific curiosity! Every angle!" Yes, and they should also study whether there are fairies on the moon and whether the solution to this whole climate change thing is copper bracelets or setting fire to icebergs. Nobody has checked that right?! Right!

There are an infinite amount of things to study. Scientists have to use their judgement, based on evidence and experience to determine the validity of a line of investigation.

Your boss comes in tomorrow and says "Hey 'phairy, we've got a problem with the network think we're getting hacked." All the evidence points to Chinese hackers, there are even posts all over Netcraft confirming it. "But," your boss continues, "my new business partner is Chinese so don't bring them into it". "I want the report on my desk pronto - and if it doesn't help fix the problem you're fired!*"

I guess you'll just buckle down and write that report?

*fudged to fit the analogy. Feel free to replace with "you can spend the next 3 years upgrading our network to block everything (except Chinese hackers). If it doesn't solve the problem you're fired!"

There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.

You know what? I concede this argument, because I went back to refer to your original comments, and I had mis-read what you wrote (quoted above). I had it in my head that you had written "There is not a single piece of evidence to that effect."

Mea culpa. Misunderstanding. You are correct that there is nothing that can disprove the hypothesis of a "young earth". I had simply not read your comment correctly, and thought you were claiming something you did not, in fact, claim.:(

> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change

It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.

Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.

There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...

And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."